campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Campaigns Wikia talk:Edit war/Resolutions/SSMcat
Change 3rr link to CW:3RR to avoid double redirects. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 11:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Also unprotect and add to top, for same reasons as before. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 11:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Call for new vote: 4 September, 2006 Vote to remove Category:Civil rights" from the Same-sex marriage article ' - Requested by Lou franklin, 10:57, 4 September 2006 *Motion seconded by ШΔLÐSΣИ 12:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC) **Campaigns Wikia:Impartial Category Policy/Resolutions/SSMcat Discussion Categories should not be a cause for debate and should remain as neutral as possible. This implies that we should not categorize articles in a way that would by objectionable to large numbers of people in society. The community is invited to vote for the removal of this category from this article, as it has created more problems than solutions. This will not affect the treatment of the issue, as the article has a pro section and a con section, and all sides can express their views in the appropriate section. It is true that some people consider this a civil rights issue, but there are also many people who do not. The article can be placed under categories that we can all agree on. The debate on whether this is a civil rights issue or not should take place within the article, not via the categories. :I suggest waiting on this. I know you'll accuse me of trying to push my own agenda by suggesting that the category be left as it is, but I think it would be silly to vote on this ''now, with not one but two proposed policies pending that deal specifically with the issue of the categorization of articles. Until one of them becomes official policy, there is no "new evidence", and the same arguments will be made, most likely leading to the same result. Once a policy is established, it will be possible to debate as to how the policy applies, and only at that point will re-opening the vote do any good. Either way, there's at least a 50% chance that there will be another movement to re-open the vote at that point, so let's not waste our time voting on it again in the meantime. --whosawhatsis? 20:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) ::No, thank you. We will vote now. Lou franklin 21:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) ::I agree completely that we don't have our policies formed yet, but that hasn't stopped us before, and I think this issue has taken far too much of our time, and has divided the community, not united it. If the motion the remove the catergory waited for formed policies, we would be another month fighting about this. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 12:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC) :From the proposed Category Policy: The addition of a category to an article should not be considered a formal endorsement of the applicability of that category, but only as a means to connect a page with other pages dealing with the same or similar subjects. :Lou, thank you very much for asking for a new vote. I really appreciate the fact that you are willing to work within the system to try and get things done. :Although I agree with Whosawhatsis that we really should approve the policies we will be working under before calling for a new vote based on those policies, I'll certainly allow that preference to be overridden via parlimentary procedure. Would you agree to the use of Robert's Rules, or some sembalance of them, to be used? I'll have to brush up on details, but I would simply ask for a second person to voice support for a revote. Just as we have a need to establish policies, we also have a need to establish procedure, and I'd rather use procedures that have worked well in our Congress, the House of Lords, and anywhere else you can name. :Another request. If you can find a second, and we do vote on this, can we agree to leave it alone for an agreed upon timeframe? Like 6 months or at least after November? My biggest concern is the amount of time that this is taking away from other pages that we could be building that really would help all of us. Chadlupkes 04:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC) ::From the proposed Impartial Category Policy: ''Under this policy, articles would be placed only in categories that they are '''widely-accepted as belonging under... An article should not be placed into a category if a large number of people would object to that categorization... An article should not be placed into a category in order to promote a viewpoint.'' ::Waldsen has offered to second my motion http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Campaigns_Wikia_talk:Impartial_Category_Policy. By the way, this is not a "revote". The choices for the first vote were Civil rights, Cultural issues, Both, or Other. The choices for this vote are Civil rights or not Civil rights. It is an entirely separate question. ::The article needs to be removed from the category. It doesn't belong there. Millions of people object to classifying homosexual "marriage" as a civil rights issue. The only fair course of action is to remove the article from the category. I don't know what procedures need to be followed in order to reach a fair decision here. We need to keep trying until we find a procedure that produces a just result. Lou franklin 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC) :::This just proves my point that we should not reopen the vote until we have decided on a policy for categories. --whosawhatsis? 05:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I just explained that we are not "reopening the vote". It is a new vote. Since we have had votes in the past it is hard to understand why we can't have more of them. ::::I would be OK with delaying the vote as long as the category is removed in the interim. Lou franklin 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC) ::The addition of a category should not be considered a formal endorsement of the applicability of that category. I think the flaw in this is that readers are not expecting categories to endorse a position. This has the added danger that a biased category will not be immediately percieved as such by all, and that might lead to an implicit endorsement. The idea that convinced me of this was the prospect of categorizing Child Molestation under Civil Rights, for example. Clearly it's a completely different situation, but all definitions seem to apply. There exists a group of people who believe Child Molestation should be a civil right, and the article therefore will discuss civil rights, so under our current system it would be done and readers should not consider it a formal endorsement. Still, I see a bias there and I would fight against it. Lou sees the bias with same-sex marriage. I really think categories should be neutral enough to not create conflicts, and maybe this category went to far. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 12:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC) :::The idea that convinced me of this was the prospect of categorizing Child Molestation under Civil Rights, for example. Clearly it's a completely different situation, but all definitions seem to apply. ' This is a tactic often used by the same-sex-marriage-is-evil brigade. They compare same-sex relationships to child abuse, or say that legalising same-sex relationships will be the thin end of the wedge which will lead to the legalisation of child abuse. :::And keeping the same sex marriage article out of the civil rights category is not a neutral position. It is saying "these issues are civil rights, these are not", effectively making Campaigns Wikia admins arbiters of what is or is not a civil right. An inclusive category policy is the neutral view, an arbitrary one is not as it means systemic bias or even individual views decide which debates can or cannot be regarded as civil rights debates. McLurker 14:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I disagree with that, too. Categorization should be based on the facts and arguments presented in the article. As long as an article contains arguments that something should be a civil right, it belongs in the civil rights category, no matter how many of us agree with that argument. If it's felt that the argument was not made in good faith, that's another issue, but as long as the argument is in the aticle, the corresponding category should be. They are not based on the subject, they are based on the content. This is the only way to logically choose categories, and as such makes every potential categorization clearly and objectively "correct" or "incorrect". It's not even NPOV, it's entirely objective. --whosawhatsis? 19:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC) :::::The con section of the article states that "same sex marriage is one the most unnatural acts on the face of this earth". So can we categorize it under "unnatural acts"? How about "tools of destruction", "slippery slopes", or "weak arguments"? All those things are listed in the article. Lou franklin 23:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::If you can find enough other articles on the subject to make a category out of it, certainly. Some of those names, though, should be stated in a more neutral way (see the second-to-last paragraph of CatP). --whosawhatsis? 23:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC) :::::::It sounds like you are saying that categories should be neutral. I think we are agreeing. Lou franklin 02:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::::Close, I'm saying that they should be objectively based on the content of the article (if the article discusses the subject as a civil rights issue, it should be in Category:Civil rights) and the category names should be stated as neutrally as possible (Affirmative action should be in Category:Racial issues, not "Category:Racial discrimination"). :::::::::Placing homosexual "marriage" under civil rights is not categorizing "as neutrally as possible". If we can categorize affirmative action under racial issues instead of racial discrimination then we can categorize same-sex "marriage" under "proposed law changes" instead of civil rights. :::::::::Many people would argue that same-sex "marriage" is not a civil right. But nobody would argue that same-sex marriage doesn't involve "proposed law changes". It is a far more neutral category. Lou franklin 03:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::::::If you want to change the name of Category:Civil rights to "proposed law changes", you can propose that on Category talk:Civil rights. Whatever the name is, Same-sex marriage belongs in the category as much as anything else. --whosawhatsis? 03:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Main page Has anyone else noticed SSM is under the civil rights issues section of the front page? Does someone need to change that? Or are we hoping Lou doesn't notice? -- Ferguson 08:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC) :Fixed. Lou franklin 23:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC) ::How do we get this fixed? Lou franklin 04:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC) :::I fixed it, but that page doesn't link to anything, except this page and one of Chad's archives. Weird, eh? Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 04:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC) ::::Thanks. Lou franklin 04:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC) ::::As I mentioned on the talk page, that template is no longer being used and can be marked for deletion. It was originally protected to prevent further vandalism by you-know-who, but it's no longer necessary. --whosawhatsis? 04:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)